Judge Rejects NSA Phone Spying

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” --Anonymous[/quote]

Boy, that guy sounds like a cynical old sourpuss. He oughta just sip some eggnog, throw another rib eye on the gas grill, play some Xbox, and thank God he wasn’t born in North Korea. [/quote]

I’d agree if that same person said to just sit back and enjoy life because everything is just fine.

Is that what he said though?

102

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You know what H, you’re right, I don’t know if you would fight. That’s was uncalled for. I apologize. [/quote]

I apologize as well. The scary thing is I’d like to THINK I would fight, but don’t know if I would. I have a cushy existence just as you do. I have the same glitzy and glammy stuff you do. I love South Park just like you do (one of my favorite shows ever). Would I fight? I’d like to think so. I can fully acknowledge growths in government control I don’t like. I can fully see freedoms that have and continue to erode at a rapid pace in the name of security.

I can’t look you in the eye and say I’d fight, I can only say I’d like to think so. Hell someone could argue by not fighting yet it’s easy to make the argument I would not.

That’s scary to admit, but I think I’m hardly alone on this site if everyone is going to be honest. And like you I recognize how good we have it compared to other countries. I don’t view the goal as searching for the lowest cesspits of human existence and saying well at least we have it better than there. I don’t think you do either. America can and should be better than that. I try not to support what I think is a huge problem in the two biggest parties we have. I could always do more though. Couldn’t we all? [/quote]

I absolutely agree.

Like I said, we were once great and we could be again. We need to fight for (not guns blazing, at least not yet) for freedoms lost. We need to cut wasteful spending, yes in the military, and police (the people not the state) ourselves.

103

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The loss of freedom and the generation of fear and “security worries” among the voting public is the definition of loss, as Varq explains not too far above my post.
[/quote]

What about the fear of a complete government take over and loss of freedom that Varq and H have displayed. Isn’t that just as debilitating? [/quote]

No. It stimulates people to action and education (unless you meant the extreme paranoid prepper variety of the strawman). One only remains free as long as one is vigilant to watch and strike down growing largess from the government.

“Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance.”

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

–Samuel Adams

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to … remain silent.”

“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

–Jefferson

“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” --Anonymous[/quote]

Aragorn, we agree on a lot of things. I completely agree with everything you just wrote.

I love the Adams quote, but what does he mean by universally corrupt? The government, the people themselves, or something else? Do you honestly feel that the majority of Americans are corrupt? How about the government?

I see a lot of problems, real problems, with our people and the government, but corrupt is a strong word I wouldn’t throw around lightly.

Jefferson’s quote is another great one. I think ignorance more so than enlightenment in that the people are enlightened to the issues we face, the information is right there readily available, but ignorance is bliss.

The Anonymous quote is the best one by far, which is why I have not advocated we just sit back and ignore our problems. Rather we should face them head on and change.

I’m not arguing against anything you wrote. What I am saying is that we are not oppressed. Anyone that thinks the American people, at this point, are oppressed imo is going to far. Are we on a road to oppression? I can easily buy the argument. Should we do something about it? Yes, we should.

104

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If you are an indentured servant I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t see how I am. Yes, I have some debt, yes America is in debt (which I suppose counts as partially mine). Debt is an instrument, a tool in the tool box, so to speak. A tool we are free to use or not use. Another freedom we have that others do not.

It doesn’t feel like I live in a cage. It feels like I live in a nice house, with nice modest things. It doesn’t feel like a cage when I sit on my back porch, grilling a ribeye while drinking a ice cold Yuengling. I guess I just see and appreciate the freedoms we have as much as the freedoms we’ve lost.[/quote]

Is there a certain size a cage must be for the definition to fit? Who tells master how much he can allow his slaves to do? If a slave manages to buy his freedom and purchase a piece of property from master, may master still make rules for slave? If slave can’t leave master’s property without entering the property of another master, what should slave do? Accept his position, or…?[/quote]

The idea that we live in our master’s cage is absolutely absurd, especially since people in this world live in REAL cages and have REAL masters.

If you don’t like your cage, you are free to pack your things, and more to Argentina, Australia, or Somalia. No one will stop you and you’ll be free of your cage.

105

[quote]H factor wrote:
Here’s an interesting read on these wars and the economy usmc:

It actually has arguments from liberals, conservative economists, etc. I would encourage you to read it through and see if it doesn’t change your mind in some areas. I believe the “war is good for the economy” is a very popular myth. I’m not saying we should never go to war or even that we shouldn’t have gone to Afghanistan (Iraq I would argue against, but another time for that)…but I’m definitely not buying the fact that these insanely long, insanely expensive wars have been a net positive for the economy at all.

I will read it and try and keep an open mind.

Edit: I said I was going to keep an open mind and I’m trying, but some of this is just rhetoric.

For example:
“If you’re injured in an automobile accident, and you sue the driver, you get much more for your injury than if you’re fighting for your country. There’s a double standard here. If you happen to put your life at risk fighting for your country, you get a little. If you walk across the street and get injured, you get a lot more.” - Stiglitz interview with Spiegel

Yes, this is true, but there is a difference between being injured in the line of duty that you volunteered for and being hit by a negligent driver while running errands. This is also an indictment of how litigious we have become.

106

H, does Stiglitz expand this thought in any of the links? I see where he talks about increased costs for vets, which I can see.

“Stiglitz: Listen, World War II was really unusual, because America was in the Great Depression before. So the war did help the US economy to get securely out of this decline. This time, the war is bad for the economy in both the short and long run. We could have spent trillions in research or education instead. This would have led to future productivity increases.”

Edit:

Found the Guardian piece.

107

In my opinion it’s a very common economic myth that war is good for the economy. Most of this is based on World War II which is extremely short sighted and which I don’t feel the need to get into right now. I would find it incredibly hard to argue (though I would be open to reading things) that these two wars we were/are mired in have been a net positive. And if they are I don’t see how one could then argue against massive government stimulus packages. Unless somehow we think money for someone to build a bomb has more impact than money to build a bridge.

I’m NOT anti-military even though it may appear as if I come off that way. I am anti-military waste, I am anti-“security” (when it comes to eroding freedoms), I am anti- giant military industrial complex. And I don’t see how so many “conservatives” can rail on and on about food stamps and put no thought into the guns side of the guns vs. butter debate.

As always my thoughts on things are continuously evolving based on what I read.

108

CommentThe myth of the war economy by: Joseph Stiglitz

I’m not an expert, but I do have a couple of thoughts:
1.) “The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war.”

Why doesn’t Stiglitz mention the internet boom and the Dot-Com bubble? He goes on to say the Gulf war of 1991 demonstrates wars can be bad for the economy, but doesn’t explain why.

2.)“By contrast, the direct costs of a military attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime will be minuscule in terms of total US spending. Most analysts put the total costs of the war at less than 0.1% of GDP, the highest at 0.2% of GDP. Much of that, moreover, includes the usage of munitions that already exist, implying that little or no stimulus will be provided to today’s economy.”

I don’t know the state of munitions in the early 2,000. What I can tell you, from personal experience, is that tan flight suits for F/A 18 pilots had to be put on back order for months and we had to prioritize which squadrons would receive the supply we had because they couldn’t be manufactured quickly enough.

Again, I’m not expert, but what I do know is that because of the wars equipment I was directly responsible for ordering and handling was hard to get/on back order because of demand. I also know we (USMC) increased both active duty and reserve numbers by thousands around 2005-2007. That’s thousands of jobs in just one branch. Yes, I realize these are paid through tax payer dollars. All I am trying to point out is that thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of dollars entered the economy because of the additional hiring. Does that led to economic growth, that I do not know.

3.) "Accordingly, war will be unambiguously bad in terms of what really counts: ordinary people’s standard of living. America will thus be poorer, both now and in the future. "

Is this demostrably true. Ancedotally, my standard of living has increased. I’m not saying that’s universal it’s just what I’ve exerperienced. As a point of fact, the only reason I got my first job out of the military was because of my experience as an NCO (the position normally required a college degree which I did not have at the time).

4.) “But the wait for war adds to uncertainties that already weigh on the US, and the global, economy: uncertainties arising from America’s looming fiscal deficit and a tax cut that the country cannot afford; uncertainties arising from the unfinished “war on terrorism”; uncertainties associated with the corporate accounting and banking scandals, and the Bush administration’s half-hearted efforts at reform”

Life, especially the various exchanges, are in a constant state of uncertainty and react accordingly. Weather effects the stock market. Projections (which are just best guesses) affect the stock market. Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?

The one major issue I have with this statement is the “half-hearted reform” portion. The SOX act is one of the largest (in scope) financial reforms since the SEC was created in Securities and Exchange Act(s) of the early 20th. What I find ironic, is that SOX increased the power of the federal government.

The last thing I’ll say is I find it kind of funny Stiglitz was a Clinton advisor though.

109

[quote]H factor wrote:
In my opinion it’s a very common economic myth that war is good for the economy. Most of this is based on World War II which is extremely short sighted and which I don’t feel the need to get into right now. I would find it incredibly hard to argue (though I would be open to reading things) that these two wars we were/are mired in have been a net positive. And if they are I don’t see how one could then argue against massive government stimulus packages. Unless somehow we think money for someone to build a bomb has more impact than money to build a bridge.

I’m NOT anti-military even though it may appear as if I come off that way. I am anti-military waste, I am anti-“security” (when it comes to eroding freedoms), I am anti- giant military industrial complex. And I don’t see how so many “conservatives” can rail on and on about food stamps and put no thought into the guns side of the guns vs. butter debate.

As always my thoughts on things are continuously evolving based on what I read. [/quote]

I mean, I pretty much agree with you. I think our military is larger than it needs to be. We don’t need multiple bases on Okinawa, for example. I am also anti-waste in all areas of government spending.

My argument that these two wars could have helped the recession (In that the recession coud of been worse) is based mostly off the influx of jobs needed to meet war demands. I do not believe the wars were good for the economy at all, just not necessarily bad.

110

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
In my opinion it’s a very common economic myth that war is good for the economy. Most of this is based on World War II which is extremely short sighted and which I don’t feel the need to get into right now. I would find it incredibly hard to argue (though I would be open to reading things) that these two wars we were/are mired in have been a net positive. And if they are I don’t see how one could then argue against massive government stimulus packages. Unless somehow we think money for someone to build a bomb has more impact than money to build a bridge.

I’m NOT anti-military even though it may appear as if I come off that way. I am anti-military waste, I am anti-“security” (when it comes to eroding freedoms), I am anti- giant military industrial complex. And I don’t see how so many “conservatives” can rail on and on about food stamps and put no thought into the guns side of the guns vs. butter debate.

As always my thoughts on things are continuously evolving based on what I read. [/quote]

I mean, I pretty much agree with you. I think our military is larger than it needs to be. We don’t need multiple bases on Okinawa, for example. I am also anti-waste in all areas of government spending.

My argument that these two wars could have helped the recession (In that the recession coud of been worse) is based mostly off the influx of jobs needed to meet war demands. I do not believe the wars were good for the economy at all, just not necessarily bad.
[/quote]

And I would argue that the cost came nowhere NEAR the amount of jobs “created.” Not to mention the ongoing costs of war in providing for more veterans which I wholeheartedly support. Again the economic impact of military jobs in this day and age has probably been vastly overstated and we could have done “more” with that money here. (Though I would argue the government didn’t or doesn’t need to do that either).

FWIW I’m also amazed at how many Republicans were up in arms with Obama over Solyandra and saying the government shouldn’t pick winners. These people wholeheartedly support the government picking winners all the time! And Solyandra is going to be a far cheaper fail than Lockheed Martin and the F-35.

It’s not a defense of Solyandra debacle don’t get it twisted I just can’t understand right wing logic sometime. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the thinking behind current Republicans. Democrats aren’t hard to figure out, they don’t pretend government is not the solution. They make no bones about being big government. It’s Republicans who get me scratching because they RUN against big government.

111

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
In my opinion it’s a very common economic myth that war is good for the economy. Most of this is based on World War II which is extremely short sighted and which I don’t feel the need to get into right now. I would find it incredibly hard to argue (though I would be open to reading things) that these two wars we were/are mired in have been a net positive. And if they are I don’t see how one could then argue against massive government stimulus packages. Unless somehow we think money for someone to build a bomb has more impact than money to build a bridge.

I’m NOT anti-military even though it may appear as if I come off that way. I am anti-military waste, I am anti-“security” (when it comes to eroding freedoms), I am anti- giant military industrial complex. And I don’t see how so many “conservatives” can rail on and on about food stamps and put no thought into the guns side of the guns vs. butter debate.

As always my thoughts on things are continuously evolving based on what I read. [/quote]

I mean, I pretty much agree with you. I think our military is larger than it needs to be. We don’t need multiple bases on Okinawa, for example. I am also anti-waste in all areas of government spending.

My argument that these two wars could have helped the recession (In that the recession coud of been worse) is based mostly off the influx of jobs needed to meet war demands. I do not believe the wars were good for the economy at all, just not necessarily bad.
[/quote]

And I would argue that the cost came nowhere NEAR the amount of jobs “created.” Not to mention the ongoing costs of war in providing for more veterans which I wholeheartedly support. Again the economic impact of military jobs in this day and age has probably been vastly overstated and we could have done “more” with that money here. (Though I would argue the government didn’t or doesn’t need to do that either).

FWIW I’m also amazed at how many Republicans were up in arms with Obama over Solyandra and saying the government shouldn’t pick winners. These people wholeheartedly support the government picking winners all the time! And Solyandra is going to be a far cheaper fail than Lockheed Martin and the F-35.

It’s not a defense of Solyandra debacle don’t get it twisted I just can’t understand right wing logic sometime. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the thinking behind current Republicans. Democrats aren’t hard to figure out, they don’t pretend government is not the solution. They make no bones about being big government. It’s Republicans who get me scratching because they RUN against big government. [/quote]

I agree that the long term cost could and maybe already do out weigh the benefit of job creation.

I agree, some people have a double standard when it comes to government R&D projects. Unfortunatley the government needs to spend on R&D, there re no two ways about it.

112

Fyi, not that I feel like I need to defend myself, but I did go on a rant about our loss of freedom here:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_day_our_freedom_died?id=5628193&pageNo=5

113

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree that the long term cost could and maybe already do out weigh the benefit of job creation.

I agree, some people have a double standard when it comes to government R&D projects. Unfortunatley the government needs to spend on R&D, there re no two ways about it. [/quote]

If government can create jobs with war, why can it not create them for other reasons?

Government can not create anything, because its funds must first be taken from its subjects. You seem smart enough to know better. To say that war creates jobs is to admit that communism works. If the government was to decide it needed to employ enough people to fingerpaint every inch of the interstate system, would you say that it had created jobs?

114

[quote]NickViar wrote:
[To say that war creates jobs is to admit that communism works. [/quote]

In fairness, “works” is a bit vague. The commies in China can move mountains and build cities at the drop of a hat. When Apple needs its Iphone order out the door tomorrow, regardless of glitches, the commies in China make that shit happen. Pol Pot got lots of shit done. I personally wouldn’t want to live under commie rule, but you can get a lot done with an endless supply of workers and a gun and a whip.

115

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If government can create jobs with war, why can it not create them for other reasons?
[/quote]

Military personnel are employeed in jobs created by the government.
The President is employed because of the choice to form a Republic.
We need people to collect tax revenue, those folks have jobs via government.
USPS, government jobs.

The government can create some jobs. They can’t create all the jobs or even the majority of the jobs. The gov does create some jobs.

A better question is, does the government need to create job?

[quote]
Government can not create anything, because its funds must first be taken from its subjects. You seem smart enough to know better. To say that war creates jobs is to admit that communism works. If the government was to decide it needed to employ enough people to fingerpaint every inch of the interstate system, would you say that it had created jobs?[/quote]

Semanitcs. The government creats jobs funded by the people through an agreement create, by the people, a couple hundred years ago. You could also argue, in todays world, that you or I cannot create anything for a number of reasons, chiefly that we use funds to pay for entrepreneurship that are backed by the full faith of the U.S. government (us) to precure the supplies needed to make our goods or provide a service. Never mind other things like shipping on tax payer paved roads.

Again, a better question is, is government involvement necessary?

“It’s admitting communism works”. No it’s not.

116

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” --Anonymous[/quote]

Boy, that guy sounds like a cynical old sourpuss. He oughta just sip some eggnog, throw another rib eye on the gas grill, play some Xbox, and thank God he wasn’t born in North Korea. [/quote]

I’d agree if that same person said to just sit back and enjoy life because everything is just fine.

Is that what he said though?[/quote]

You did ask me the question whether the “fear of a gov’t take over like Varq and H have espoused” wasn’t just as debilitating. I responded with a “no” and some quotes I felt were germane to the subject.

Put crassly and in round terms, the fear of gov’t takeover is the only thing that will keep largess from growing. It leads to suspicion, watchfulness, and action to keep largess at bay. Unless leading to outright prepper paranoia, it is in no way nearly as dangerous and debilitating as the security fears and safety fears we have been having crammed down our throats because those fears lead to less resolution, less watchfulness of our government, and a greater reliance upon powerful and corrupted politicians instead of keeping them on their leash.

117

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Military personnel are employeed in jobs created by the government.
The President is employed because of the choice to form a Republic.
We need people to collect tax revenue, those folks have jobs via government.
USPS, government jobs.

The government can create some jobs. They can’t create all the jobs or even the majority of the jobs. The gov does create some jobs.

A better question is, does the government need to create job?

Semanitcs. The government creats jobs funded by the people through an agreement create, by the people, a couple hundred years ago. You could also argue, in todays world, that you or I cannot create anything for a number of reasons, chiefly that we use funds to pay for entrepreneurship that are backed by the full faith of the U.S. government (us) to precure the supplies needed to make our goods or provide a service. Never mind other things like shipping on tax payer paved roads.

Again, a better question is, is government involvement necessary?

“It’s admitting communism works”. No it’s not.
[/quote]

The funds necessary for anything “created” by government were already in existence. You are correct, I guess, when you say that government can create jobs. Employing people to fingerpaint the interstate system would create jobs. I suppose I just meant that government can’t create any desired jobs. If it’s desired, the people would fund it themselves, since they have the funds to begin with.

118

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” --Anonymous[/quote]

Boy, that guy sounds like a cynical old sourpuss. He oughta just sip some eggnog, throw another rib eye on the gas grill, play some Xbox, and thank God he wasn’t born in North Korea. [/quote]

I’d agree if that same person said to just sit back and enjoy life because everything is just fine.

Is that what he said though?[/quote]

You did ask me the question whether the “fear of a gov’t take over like Varq and H have espoused” wasn’t just as debilitating. I responded with a “no” and some quotes I felt were germane to the subject.

Put crassly and in round terms, the fear of gov’t takeover is the only thing that will keep largess from growing. It leads to suspicion, watchfulness, and action to keep largess at bay. Unless leading to outright prepper paranoia, it is in no way nearly as dangerous and debilitating as the security fears and safety fears we have been having crammed down our throats because those fears lead to less resolution, less watchfulness of our government, and a greater reliance upon powerful and corrupted politicians instead of keeping them on their leash.[/quote]

True, which is why I have not advocated simply sitting back and doing nothing. Healthy fear, is a good thing in my book. When I walk through Charm City I don’t pull my hood over my head and “hope” things will be fine.

I’m curious if fear grips the nation more now or during the Cold War, in your opinion?

119

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Military personnel are employeed in jobs created by the government.
The President is employed because of the choice to form a Republic.
We need people to collect tax revenue, those folks have jobs via government.
USPS, government jobs.

The government can create some jobs. They can’t create all the jobs or even the majority of the jobs. The gov does create some jobs.

A better question is, does the government need to create job?

Semanitcs. The government creats jobs funded by the people through an agreement create, by the people, a couple hundred years ago. You could also argue, in todays world, that you or I cannot create anything for a number of reasons, chiefly that we use funds to pay for entrepreneurship that are backed by the full faith of the U.S. government (us) to precure the supplies needed to make our goods or provide a service. Never mind other things like shipping on tax payer paved roads.

Again, a better question is, is government involvement necessary?

“It’s admitting communism works”. No it’s not.
[/quote]

The funds necessary for anything “created” by government were already in existence. You are correct, I guess, when you say that government can create jobs. Employing people to fingerpaint the interstate system would create jobs. I suppose I just meant that government can’t create any desired jobs. If it’s desired, the people would fund it themselves, since they have the funds to begin with.[/quote]

I think a military is desirable and the people do pay for it with their funds, via tax dollars.

120

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The funds necessary for anything “created” by government were already in existence. You are correct, I guess, when you say that government can create jobs. Employing people to fingerpaint the interstate system would create jobs. I suppose I just meant that government can’t create any desired jobs. If it’s desired, the people would fund it themselves, since they have the funds to begin with.

I think a military is desirable and the people do pay for it with their funds, via tax dollars. [/quote]

Defense is necessary, I believe. Would you be in favor of allowing each citizen to determine how much(if any) he spends on defense, or do you believe the market would fail in that area?

If you believe taxes are necessary to pay for desirable goods and services, then why do you oppose so much of that which government funds? “The people do pay for it with their funds, via tax dollars,” can be applied to anything on which government spends our money.

Why does the market only work in some areas for Republicans? Why must the government force people to purchase certain goods?

Minimum wage mandated by government? Ridiculous, totally arbitrary number.
Defense spending mandated by government? Totally not arbitrary.